Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine (Veritas Books)

The McGraths purported to write a rational criticism of Dawkins' book. That would be a laudable aim if only they applied the same rationality to their proposition that "Not only is God not dead...he never seems to be more alive" to themselves. If the devices they used against Dawkins were turned against themselves, this book would be exposed as an utter failure. The authors criticised Dawkins'attempt to prove his point that science has discredited religion by the claim that there are many scientists who are atheists (not quite Dawkins' point but the McGraths thought so). The McGraths' refutation is summed in their own declaration that "far from dying out, belief in God has rebounded". I think that writers who criticize another writer's method as one to "ridicule, distort, belittle and demonize" should refrain from the same method. Reading the McGraths book, I was suddenly reminded of what Jesus was meant to have said, "Why do you see the splinter in your brother's eye and not the beam that is in your own eye?". Ultimately, if the authors had intended to challenge Dawkins with proof and reason, I think that objective has not been achieved. Don't take my word for it, read it and judge for yourself - it's a small book (but you might find that it was not money well spent. Best to borrow the book from the local church).

This is a pathetic effort to push back against Dawkins. The primary merit of the book seems to be McGrath's credentials as an Oxford professor, which seemingly places him on an equal footing with Dawkins. This would be the case if we accepted credentials in place of truth. McGrath's mistake is that he doesn't stick to the truth but evidently expects to be believed anyway. My prime example would be page 26 where McGrath states "At no point does Thomas [Aquinas] speak of these as being "proofs" for God's existence;...". That's an odd statement, since every translation I've found of Aquinas' "Summa Theologica" includes the statement "I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways". McGrath is a professor of historical theology, so he can be expected to be familiar with the contents of Summa Theologica. Am I to take McGrath's word about what Aquinas said, or am I to believe what Aquinas actually wrote?

There are some fair criticisms of Dawkins in the book, but overall its only value is in milking the name of Oxford to fight a feeble battle against Dawkins' demand that we respect evidence over faith.

Overall, this a very good, if short, book. He explains his points clearly with ample support. The only real criticism I have is the title. I realize it was chosen to try and sell more copies, but I think a different title would have done more for its credibility.

It's important for all the negative reviewers of this book to realize that, title notwithstanding, it is but ONE part of a sort of TRILOGY of books McGrath has written in response to "atheistic" forms of naturalism in general, and to Dawkin's (mis)understanding of religion in particular (The other two books are "Dawkin's God," and "The Twilight of Atheism"). As such, it is (obviously) the shortest and least academic, and should be thought of as HIS "Letter to an (anti)Christian Nation," NOT a systematic response to Dawkin's "God Delusion."

Anyone wishing for a much more DETAILED analysis of Dawkin's (frankly)"fast and loose" habit of blending SOUND evolutionary theory with his PERSONAL, decidedly Un-scientific, not-particularly-well-argured, atheistic SPECULATIONS should read McGrath's "Dawkin's God," instead of/before this book (and when combined with John Haught's "Is Nature Enough?", Kenneth Miller's "Finding Darwin's God," David Ray Griffin's "Two Great Truths," and Keith Ward's "Pascal's Fire," the case against Dawkin's presuppositions is PARTICULARLY strong). Those who STILL find McGrath's arguments against Dawkins "weak" after reading THAT book will have to take it up with one of the most famous (and much more REASONABLE) defenders of Darwinism, Michael Ruse, who "loved" McGrath's book, and even lent his name for a blurb.

It's also important to remember that, although they are practicing Christians, McGrath (and Haught, Miller, Griffin, and Ward) have NO real problems with "orthodox" Neo-Darwinism (they are NOT big fans of "intelligent design" theory, however); it's Richard Dawkin's atheistic ASSUMPTIONS of the theory, and his amazingly shallow knowledge of the varieties of Christian theology they take issue with.

And for the record (for those reviewers making quips about McGrath's "PC" religion," or the "death of liberal Xianity"), McGrath is a card-carrying EVANGELICAL (albeit of the British variety) who's been ALMOST as critical of "liberal" Christianity as he has been of atheism!! (as a religious progressive myself, I largely DISAGREE with his critiques of the liberal approach, but that's besides the point.)

Finally, it should be obvious that McGrath's OWN version of (religious) naturalism is not fully laid out in a thin work like "Dawkins Delusion"; no, for that you'll have to read his 3-Volume, 1,000-plus page "A Scientific Theology" (or at least his 300 page summary, "the Science of God"), along with choice bits of his OTHER 30 or so books. (How many scholarly works do YOU have under your belt, critics?)

I don't at all mind critical reviews; it's INACCURATE and Ill-informed ones that really annoy me.

Still reading this book, but so far I'm extremely impressed with the McGrath's clarity, and their restraint in NOT attacking Dawkins, rather his assumptions and conclusions. THey don't avoid or gloss over any difficult questions, and neither do they avoid the assumption behind the question. I highly recommend this book.

This is a superbly written critique of Dawkins, and mercifully short. McGrath rightly points out that a lengthy point-by-point rebuttal would be tedious. The book then addresses Dawkins polemical style, use of evidence, and weak presentation of the atheist case against theism. He does it all in a way that is respectful, and even points the reader to atheist writers with more a more convincing approach to the discussion. Also, the book is written in such a way that most people would find it respectful and thoughtful. McGrath does not believe in "Intelligent Design," does not promote scientific creationism, and has a sophisticated grasp of the philosophy of science. If you're interested in this debate, I highly recommend this book.

I write this review in response to several of the 1-3 star-rated reviews which complain, funnily enough, that McGrath's criticism lacks any sort of real response, i.e. another theory to replace the one he is criticising.

First, you are looking at the argument completely wrong and fail to see that he is simply analysing Dawkin's argument, which does NOT require a replacement theory, i.e. Dawkin's got such and such wrong about God and religion, HENCE, there is a God. When you critique, it is not a rule to replace a discredited theory with a more pliable one.

I am practicing Christian with a Bachelor Degree in Astronomy, and as such, I feel a certain affinity with how McGrath makes his argument. He really goes about it in the most scientific way. He takes every argument that Dawkin's makes to support HIS theory (there is no God, religion is evil) and tests them against what is known. In this, he finds Dawkin's argument's lacking depth, with several obvious "claims" to be shown as nothing more then simple opinion based on some observation. The problem that McGrath has (as do I) is that the book is sold as a "scientist's" criticism of God/religion (based on evidence using rational and logical thinking) when in fact in is based on partial evidence and general statements. Dawkin's arguments are dissected by McGrath and shown for their massive flaws. This is what a scientist does. He tests the claims that other's make. He does NOT have to posit ANOTHER theory when showing the first claim to be false.

I highly recommend this book to all persons who have read Dawkin's popular book, The God Delusion. When read with an open mind, one can see that you can come to the same conclusion as McGrath, that Dawkin's arguments are essentially lacking any substantial evidence. Also, you realise that you can agree with McGrath without feeling forced to conclude with the Lord's Prayer.

A quick and persuasive read. For such a short book, the response to the God Delusion that McGrath communicates is astonishingly clear and to-the-point. Throughout his book, McGrath justifies his boldness in critiquing Dawkins's approach by providing follow-up counter points and examples that I found quite convincing and logically sound.

Some may misinterpret McGrath's tone as reflecting a personal attack towards Dawkins, but if one reads carefully, McGrath is being critical of Dawkins's approach, which if anyone has read the God Delusion, deserves an equally bold response.

While I have found some apologetic books a bit lukewarm (CS Lewis not included of course), I would say that I was surprised by how soundly McGrath rips to shreds much of Dawkins's core themes. In addition to being fresh and relevant, McGrath's responses are communicated with fine-tune precision, with not a single word to spare. Given its intellectually stimulating yet easy-to-follow approach, this bite-sized book is definitely worth picking up.

Richard Dawkins is not far from the devil himself with all his deception. Dawkins preaches things he knows that couldn't possible be true Yet he so confidently affirms them in front of weak minded people that are not willing or too frightened to examine the truth for themselves. Darwin was drunk....

MacGrath must have tried to take advantage of those critique-grounds that are used to criticise christianity by all reasonable people, including free thinkers, scientists, and ordinary people with common sense -but to no avail. His pompous attempt came to nothing -a great fiasco. So, the author realized that to give good impact on the public, he should depend on sophistic strategy rather than reasonable argumentation. In his new book, MacGrath is going to every length, depending on his poorest rhetoric, to conclude that Dawkins also may be or must be a fundamentalist; so he has rolled out a magic word -'Atheist Fundamentalist'. Actually he eagerly wishes Dawkins to be a sort of a fundamentalist and belong to a group of those people of his own kind. With his new misleading rhetoric and a mean play of words lacking the slightest bit of rationality, MacGrath was just struggling to impose on Dawkins' heart the scarlet letter of "F", for the only purpose of demolishing the honest scientist, not of finding truth through rational criticism or cogent refutation based on evidence and reason, because he could never understand or get at the core of the question.
In fact, the strategy frenetically loved by the author is this : 'making the essence of the problem obscure merely by using several key words borrowed from other critical thinkers and rational scientists, without providing any cogent ground for his assertive statements. He just faked rationality; throughout his book, his mouth is to be found, but no brain. The author has taken the stand as a rhetorician, not as a thinker. This is only because he has no understanding. In MacGrath, you can see empty words, but no rational thinking itself. He can't never match or rival Dawkins in thinking, reasoning, scientific argumentation, or even aesthetic elegance. While reading this book, you can easily find out that he didn't have any other choice but to take the strategy of sophistic word-play. This, however, is not an honest behaviour. In the domain of attaining to truth, the virtue of intellectual honesty is the first requirement to all. It can rightly be said that with his mouth of fooling around, the author himself has very successfully illustrated how groundless and thoughtless a religious person could be.

Delusion: "an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder." By that definition, neither Dawkins nor the theism he despises are delusional, and perhaps both books render a disservice to the converstaion about God by the use of such hyperbolic titles. The McGraths merely resort to the same polemical style they are so critical of Dawkins for using. Other than this sometimes uncharitable tone, I found The Dawkins Delusion? to be well reasoned and worthy of reading by theists and atheists alike.

Alister McGrath, a fellow Oxford professor with Richard Dawkins, is joined by his wife, Johanna Collicut McGrath, in the writing of this, their answer to Dawkins' The God Delusion. Alister McGrath, once an atheist himself, earned his doctorate in molecular biophysics. After become convinced of God, and converting to Christianity, McGrath went on to study theology. As a trained scientist, respected theologian, and Oxford fellow, McGrath is well-postioned to respond to Dawkins' bold claims.

It is the McGraths' stated purpose not to refute every one of Dawkins' contentions (hence the 97 page rebuttal of a 400+ page book). While they assert that all of Dawkins' arguments are flawed "misrepresentations and overstatements" (page 13), they chose not to answer Dawkins on every point, but rather to respond selectively to a few of his points, namely these four:

1) Faith is not irrational nonsense, as Dawkins contends in many derisive statements. In this first chapter, the McGraths respond to Dawkins' central arguments against the rationality of faith, his own rebuttals of the standard theistic arguments, and finally, his improbability argument. Here, the McGraths points out, correctly, that 1) complexity is not an argument for improbability and 2) improbability is not a valid argument for non-existence. The McGraths deftly turn Dawkins argument back upon himself (see page 28).

2) Science and faith are not incompatible, as Dawkins seems to think. Much of Dawkins' book is devoted to discussions of evolution, with the underlying assumption that evolution makes God unnecessary and thus, passe. Stephen Jay Gould (America's best known evolutionist who is also an atheist) disagrees, noting the great number of evolutionary biologist who believe in God. He puts it well in this excerpt from The Rock of Ages cited by the McGraths (page 34): "Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs--and equally compatible with atheism." The McGraths proceed to expand upon Gould's well-known "NOMA" (nonoverlapping magesteria, Gould's view that science and religion explore two very distinct disciplines without any overlap) with their own view of POMA (partially overlapping magesteria, suggesting that the two disciplines can inform and compliment each other)(pages 40-41), a concept that this reviewer has found useful.

3) Dawkins' description of the evolutionary roots of religion are suspect. The arguments Dawkins uses to build his case that religious impulses have biological roots are largely psychological in nature, and the McGraths point out that questions of the origin of religion are unsettled in the field of psychology, a field in which Dawkins is not trained and has limited expertise. In this section, the McGrath's also offer a reasoned critique Dawkins' reliance upon his own concept of memes, those mysterious determinative units of self-propagating cultural traits which work, as Dawkins imagines them, in much the same way as genes.

4) Dawkins' contention that religion is evil is simplistic, and his the evidence he uses is highly selective. And so the McGraths argues that an even stronger case can be made for the benefits of religion historically in the world.

Throughout the book, the McGraths view is that The God Delusion lacks analytical rigor, and instead relies heavily upon rhetoric. As such, they identify Dawkins' book as an atheistic-fundamentalist polemic. And so Dawkins overblown arguments are welcomed by religionists such as anit-evolutionary William Dembski (who believes that Dawkins' pomposity is turning people against belief in evolution) and decried by fellow atheists such as pro-evolutionary Michael Ruse (who laments Dawkins ignorance of Christianity and his polarizing rhetoric)(pages 50-51).

While not exhaustive (by design), the McGrath's have offered us a well-reasoned critique of the atheistic arguments of Dawkins, and left us with a cogent description of the inherent weaknesses in The God Delusion. I recommend it to my friends on both sides of this debate.

Whilst I do not agree with all Dawkins's statements in his book "The God Delusion", his main point is his refutation of the trurh of the Bible which is perfectly valid when you consider that the Bible Genesis is mostly wrong (evolution, cosmology). Whoever believes in Noah's deluge will believe anything !
Macgrath carefully ignores this subject.

This book is an excellent, well-written rebuttal to Dawkins' completely inane work. It is a shame that anyone thinks Dawkins has any credibility to begin with, but militant atheists will cling to anyone who writes about their silly delusion of the non-existence of God.

McGrath systematically deconstructs and thoroughly debunks Dawkins, chapter after chapter, point after point. His arguments are well reasoned, well researched, and absent of bias.

I look forward to a world in which more of the Dawkins nonsense is debunked. Hopefully our hero McGrath will take on the equally inane Neil DeGrasse Tyson next.

Professor McGrath and his wife have written a fairly short response to Richard Dawkins book "The God Delusion." Some people feel he could and perhaps should have written a much fuller response. Alister McGrath points out that while he could have written a point by point rebuttal, this would have resulted in a lengthy and tedious book. Instead he takes an overview and points out some of the unscholarly methods and flawed assumptions and conclusions in Dawkins' book.

In the introduction Professor McGrath writes, "When I read "The God Delusion" I was both saddened and troubled. How, I wondered, could such a gifted popularizer of the natural sciences, who once had such a passionate concern for the objective analysis of evidence, turn into such an aggressive anti-religious propagandist, with an apparent disregard for evidence that is not favourable to his case?" On page 25 Alister McGrath writes "... Dawkins seems to view things from within a highly polarised world view that is no less apocalyptic and warped than that of the religious fundamentalisms he wishes to eradicate." It is this attitude that has resulted in Dawkins losing objectivity to the extent that he equates belief in God with belief in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. Whoever heard of an adult coming to a belief in Santa Claus?

Elsewhere McGrath has pointed out Dawkins' lack of research. He writes, "His inept engagement with Luther shows up how Dawkins abandons even the pretence of rigorous evidence based scholarship. Anecdote is substituted for evidence; selective internet-trawling for quotes, displaces rigorous and comprehensive engagement with primary sources. In this book Dawkins throws the conventions of academic scholarship to the winds; he wants to write a work of propaganda, and consequently treats the accurate rendition of religion as an inconvenient impediment to his chief agenda, which is the intellectual and cultural destruction of religion."

Basically this short book exposes major flaws in Dawkins' arguments and expresses what I suspect the majority of scientists would think about "The God Delusion" that it degrades the scientific professions to the level of schoolboy mud-slinging argument. Indeed literary critic Terry Eagleton has savaged Dawkins' book and Professor Michael Ruse, himself an atheist, declares that "The God Delusion" makes him embarrassed to be an atheist. There are others in the scientific community who have expressed similar sentiments.

"The Dawkins Delusion" is a worthwhile buy for serious minded thinkers and will bring necessary counter balance to the wild rhetoric of "The God Delusion."

It amazes and puzzles me why so many irreligious, anti-Christian, atheistic writers and reviewers of books are obsessed with religion and God. Just read the reviews of this book or any other book that would dare call into question the Darwinian faith-claim that matter is eternal and we are all here by accident. Why would those who deny God want to waste their time reading books about a God that does not exist, or spend so much emotional energy writing critical reviews of anything that rebuts the holy grail of evolution? Why are God-deniers so God-obsessed? It seems to me there are far too many people out there that can not pull themselves away from Something that is not supposed to be there at all.

Having read Dawkins' book (the God Delusion) I read reviews that this book is THE answer to Dawkins' arguments. What made me buy the book was the fact that the author was a non-religious scientist who, at some point of his life, became religious (Christian). I was interested to find out why. I mean an explanation of this, as well as an argument supporting the fact that religion is the way to go.

Let us momentarily accept the fact that McGrath tears Dawkins' arguments in pieces. Even so, having disproved Dawkins' thesis, McGrath has not proved or justified anything at all. Does he not understand that showing that the proof of a certain proposition A is wrong does not imply that he has found a proof for [not A]?

True, Dawkins is passionate in his writing. McGrath bases his book on this. But where, in "The Dawkins Delusion", is it shown that religion is an answer to humankind's problems? Also, why has McGrath become a Christian and not, say, a Zoroastrian? This is a function of his environment. The fact that Zoroastrianism is not predominant in England, made him become a Christian. By doing so, he chose to believe certain things and discard others. On what basis?

If McGrath said, somewhere in his book, that

...

"listen, I don't know why I became religious, I did so because it felt the right thing to do, many of the people around me where religious, I felt more comfortable this way, it gave me consolation at certain moments, and I chose Christianity not on any rational basis, but because it is all around me, it has been around me since my childhood, it is second nature to me; and, having accepted Christianity, I must support it by saying that my beliefs are correct, but other religions are wrong--however I respect them because, like in my case, I understand that thousands of Zoroastrians find consolation in their faith"

...

then I would find his book more honest. The book would then be seen in the light of someone who could not help it but become religious because he couldn't function otherwise and, having become religious , and a professor of Theology, he must write against atheist's theses. It's part of his faith and part of his job at Oxford too. (It becomes an entry in his CV.)

The fact that book can be seen as "disproving" Dawkins' claims depends on the faith of the reader: If the reader is looking for a

proof that Dawkins' proof is not valid, he or she will find it in McGrath's book. If the reader positions himself or herself against McGrath's arguments he or she will conclude that McGrath has not disproved Dawkins's proof.

But no reader will find a proof/justification/argumentation/evidence of what McGrath tacitly suggests: that religion is the right

choice; i.e. that it is correct.

Religion is a man-made concept (McGrath has not disproved this) and, as such, some people may embrace it but others not. Whether they embrace the belief on cosmic teapots (p. 28) which McGrath suggests as ridiculous (it is) or that a Catholic will enter purgatory upon death is a matter of which society the individual belongs to and has nothing to do with the concept itself.

If it does, then McGrath should write another book to justify this.

This is probably the most accidentally ironic book I have ever read. The McGraths (or most likely just the male one) rant on and on about Dawkins. They state that Dawkins is a fundamentalist and dogmatic atheist about 200,000,000 times in the book. They also repeatedly point out his lack of scientific backing for his claims. I wonder if any other readers of this book saw the irony as I did, about how the McGraths use basically no scientific evidence themselves to back up their own points. They are extremely dogmatic in their view of Dawkins.

This book is basically just a huge personal attack on Dawkins, repeatedly stating how "inadequate" and "out of depth" Dawkins is, regarding the subject matter. Hm, I would most certainly be inclined to think that Dawkins has established himself a lot more strongly on the intellectual front than Alister McGrath, and from reading both their last books, this has evidently proved to be plenty enough to successfully argue his (Dawkins) religious beliefs, and the reasons behind them.

The McGraths don't really take all that much away from Dawkins' arguments, especially due to the fact that they deal with so little of them. I remember the McGraths' silly little disclaimer at the start, about how they were only going to tackle some of the arguments blah blah blah, but this is a very ridiculous disclaimer. It's quite obvious that the arguments chosen were carefully handpicked to show the worst in Dawkins, bring up his weakest points, but even still the McGraths failed to tackle these properly. Most of their "counter" arguments consisted of being condescending towards Dawkins first, obviously to instill a sense of "Oh, apparently Richie is out of his depth, therefore anything said against him must be correct", and then they go on most of the time to sort of sidestep his main points, and stick in a little theistic view of the same topic, or else just quote someone more capable.

All in all, this is a terrible book, and takes hardly anything away from The God Delusion. In my personal opinion, the McGraths have just written this book to take advantage of all the Christians who have read or heard about The God Delusion, obviously due to the fact that these Christians will need something to restrengthen their faith after The God Delusion, and will be willing to spend money for this purpose. I don't know how any publisher could have thought this book was good enough to print, apart from the possible profit due to the reasons just stated. Then of course I saw this wasn't even necessary, after we see who the publishers were. They probably fall into the category already stated also.

Richard Dawkins is not your mothers atheist. He along with Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris are the most militant atheists since Nietzche. His hatred for any kind of theism (Christianity in particular) has clouded his judgement to the point that he is trying to critique something that he has no clue what its about. Here Dr. McGrath deals with him fairly and concisly. McGrath simply shows that Dawkins does not know what he talking about that his book is basically a rant against religion. Maybe he's gotten tired of losing debates at Oxford to McGrath and Richard Swinburne.
His fellow atheists are shaking thier heads. Just look at the quote from Michael Ruse on the cover of the book itself "The God Delusionmakes me embarrased to be an atheist, and the McGraths show why. Dawkins does not ever spare his fellow scientists who are a little friendly toward religion (see p. 47). His vision of scientifc breakthroughs is the equivivlent of Marx' view of religion that religion is those who are scientificaly challenged. Once science reaches the ideal point religion will be rendered obsolete (p. 54).

His view of religion is based upon an already defunct idea from a writer from 1890. Theology, provided that he would have done his homework, has long refuted that point (p.59-60)

But what Dawkins has done that has taken the proverbial cake, is that he is calling religious belief an infection from a virus that invaded the mind. However McGrath points out Dawkins inconsistientcy stating that he cannot distinguish his own worldview from a theistic one (p.68-69). Dawkins just continues reasoning from his own subjective point of view.

But there is more, he calls religion evil and that its elimination would be beneficial to the world. McGrath simply points out that notion is nieive. (p.83) Dawkins disorts even the teachings of Jesus (p.84) and does what he does best "ridicule, distort, belittle and demonize."

In short McGrath does a very good job on someone that has been so vicious toward religion and their adhearants with out going into the Ad Homiunum argumentation. Those who prejudge this book without reading it have no business reveiwing it. And if they do they are just repeating the actions of thier mentor, Dr.Dawkins.

First, to even call this a "book" is practically an insult. Although there are 118 numbered pages, the book literally starts on page 7 with a sophomoric "Introduction" that rambles on for 7 pages. If you throw out the intro, footnote pages, recommended reading pages, author bio pages, and remove all of the blank pages and only count two half pages as one, you are left with 76 "small" pages of double-spaced nonsense. Others here have done an excellent job of highlighting specific logic faults of the author so I won't dwell on that topic. I got the sense that the author(s) -- two are listed, but the book claims it was "mostly" written by one, so make of that what you will -- feels threatened by the success of Dawkins and/or his book and poured his feelings into this "book" in an attempt to piggy-back off of Dawkins' name and that's why I refer to "The Dawkins Delusion?" as just plain sad.

I realize that brevity alone should not cause one to overlook the possible message, so let me sum up my opinion by quoting the concluding remarks of the author on page 96...""The God Delusion" seems more designed to reassure atheists whose faith is faltering than to engage fairly or rigorously with religious believers and others seeking the truth. One wonders if this is because the writer is himself an atheist whose faith is faltering."

So basically, McGrath attempts to discredit Dawkins by calling atheism a "faith" (a comment which typifies the authors' ignorance) and then suggests that Dawkins only wrote his book to try and shore up his personal beliefs. I haven't written a review of "The God Delusion" because too many others had already expressed their well thought out reasons for why they either liked or disliked it...but I felt compelled to comment on 'this' book because it offers nothing of substance and buyers should be forewarned. Get it at your library (like I did) if you feel you must read it.

Forgot to mention the typos, poor editing, etc. There were entirely too many grammatical mistakes...even for such a short "book". For example, you would think an Oxford professor would notice the problem with this sentence from pg 80, "[Robert] Pape argues is that the fundamental motivation is political..." Or why, on pg 81, does the author suddenly become fixated with the word "transcendent" (and it's variations)? He uses it twice in one sentence and five times in three short paragraphs on that one page! Maybe he lost his thesaurus.

This book was well formatted and to the point. The authors do not need large tail spin like Dawkins to prove their points. Great book and entertaining. Good book to have as reference for misguided atheists. (I gave a copy to a atheist who loved dawkins, and through this book saw his flaws).

I'm scared in finding that people have found this book readable at all.

I'm sure those giving this pathetic rant 5 stars have NEVER read anything by Richard Dawkins but only have heard about him through their church leaders.

Guys, read both books and if you're even a little bit thinking you cannot be writing such babbles!

Ignacio

World-renowned scientist Richard Dawkins writes in The God Delusion: 'If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down....Alister McGrath who is Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University and once an atheist himself, he gained a doctorate in molecular biophysics before going on to become a leading Christian theologian. He wonders how two people, who have reflected at length on substantially the same world, could possibly have come to such different conclusions about God. McGrath subjects Dawkins' critique of faith to rigorous scrutiny...

In their press release, the publisher quotes Michael Ruse, Professor of Philosophy, Florida State University, as saying: "The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist, and the McGraths show why."

As Christians, we can respond with confidence to The God Delusion that Dawkins' arguments are weak, unsupported by evidence, and tell us more about the condition of present-day atheism than about faith in God," McGrath said.

The God Delusion by veteran theophobe Richard Dawkins has caused no small stir since being released late last year. It was a wild slugfest by the Oxford atheist and biologist, taking on most types of religion and belief in God.

In this book a fellow Oxford professor weighs into the fray. McGrath has degrees in both theology and molecular biophysics. Thus he is more than qualified to discuss Dawkins.

Because theology and philosophy made up the bulk of his 400-page polemic, McGrath finds it to be an intellectually lightweight affair. Instead of a well-reasoned, sustained and coherent argument for his case, the book is just a collection of cheap pot shots, rehashed and tired atheist arguments, and overheated polemics.

There exists much more competent atheist argumentation. The late atheist Stephen Jay Gould at least tried to stick to the evidence in his discussions, but Dawkins "simply offers the atheist equivalent of slick hellfire preaching, substituting turbocharged rhetoric and highly selective manipulation of facts for careful, evidence-based thinking".

Because The God Delusion is such a disjointed, rambling affair, lacking a clear line of argument, or proper use of evidence, it is hard to properly review it. As McGrath notes, to simply reply point by point to his many errors, misrepresentations and distortions would make for a long and dry read.

Thus McGrath singles out a few key areas, and devotes this brief (75 page) book to them. For example, Dawkins' mistaken understanding of faith is discussed in the opening chapter. Contrary to Dawkins' caricature, biblical faith is informed faith, faith based on reason and an honest examination of the evidence.

Consider the false dilemma Dawkins seeks to create: you either believe in facts, reason, and science, or you are superstitious, faith-based, and deluded. Of course very few scientists believe in such a simplistic and unnecessary dichotomy. They are aware of the limits of science, and recognise that other areas (philosophy, theology, and so on) can have a vital role to play in the big questions of life. Even an atheist like Gould would dismiss the claim that science must lead to atheism.

Indeed, Gould developed the idea of NOMA (non-overlapping magesteria) in which he suggests that both religion and science have primary roles to play, although they remain as separate spheres. Dawkins says there is only one magesterium: science. McGrath suggests that both Dawkins and Gould are wrong on this point: he instead posits POMA (partially-overlapping magesteria), in which both intersect and feed off each other.

He uses as but one example, Francis Collins, a man of deep Christian faith, but also a highly qualified scientist (head of the Human Genome Project). Science and religion can and do co-exist, contrary to Dawkins' claims.

McGrath also critiques Dawkins on his understanding of the origins of religion. Dawkins of course just recycles the old naturalistic projection theories as developed by Feuerbach, Marx, and Freud. Dawkins, following Dennett, also speaks of religion as an "accidental by-product" or a "misfiring of something useful".

But as McGrath rightly notes, in a Darwinian (or Dawkinsian) universe, there is no such thing as accident, because there is no such thing as purpose. "How can Dawkins speak of religion as something `accidental', when his understanding of the evolutionary process precludes any theoretical framework that allows him to suggest that some outcomes are `intentional' and others `accidental'? ... For Darwinism, everything is accidental."

McGrath also critiques Dawkins' notions of belief in God as a "virus of the mind," and the "meme". These points are more full explored in his earlier, and perhaps more important book, Dawkins' God (2005). Here he reiterates his case.

Dawkins claims that belief in God is a kind of virus that infects the mind. But while biological viruses can be observed and identified, this virus is just a construct of Dawkins' philosophical naturalism. And if religious ideas are viruses of the mind, perhaps all ideas are viruses. Maybe the idea of atheism is also a virus of the mind.

Dawkins' theory of memes is also problematic. According to Dawkins, just as biological evolution involves genetic replicators, so culture has memic replicators. Thus a God-meme has evolved and is passed along in culture, "leaping from brain to brain" as Dawkins puts it. Yet as McGrath rightly asks, "has anyone actually seen these things, whether leaping from brain to brain, or just hanging out?"

We have no strong scientific evidence for memes; it is really only a mental construct designed to make a case for militant atheism. Thus Dawkins in large part makes his case against religion "dependent on a hypothetical, unobserved entity". But it is Dawkins who describes God in just such terms. Says McGrath, "since the evidence for memes is so tenuous, do we have to propose a meme for believing in memes in the first place?"

McGrath finishes his book with a chapter on religious violence. As someone who has grown up in Northern Ireland, he knows all about this issue. He agrees with Dawkins that religious violence is repugnant. But Dawkins is just plain foolish, and wrong, to suggest that if we get rid of religion, we get rid of violence and everything becomes sweetness and light.

McGrath is not simply being critical here in this book. He has praise for some of Dawkins' earlier work, even though not in complete agreement with it. But it is clear that Dawkins, the more or less dispassionate scientist of several decades ago, has become an embittered, angry, and nasty piece of work, flailing out at anything smacking of religion, resorting to the same doctrinaire, intolerant and bigoted fundamentalism and rhetoric that he accuses religious folk of being guilty of.

Why this change from a serious scientist to a secular holy warrior? We can only speculate, but as McGrath suggests, perhaps Dawkins, like other militant atheists, is feeling threatened. Threatened that he might in fact be wrong. Maybe even deluded.

The Dawkins Delusion is a thin book - barely 115 pages including index. The arguments are just as thin. This book is an example of intellectual dishonesty. What's wrong with this book? Let me tell you.

First, it is more of a personal attack against Dawkins than about his arguments. Page after page is used to denigrate Dawkins himself. This is argumentum ad hominem. The author cannot claim ignorance. He is well educated and knows what he is doing. What he is doing is intellectual dishonesty in action. While I read the book, it had the feel of one of the right wing political diatribes that flood the market as "truth." Yet the author is supposed to be an intellectual. He has descended into crassness. The reason he has done so is that his arguments do not stand up to inspection. Someone not well educated may fall for his claims, but anyone well versed in science or philosophy will see right through the weak and misleading arguments used by the author. Let me give you and example.

Dawkins had addressed the claims of the Intelligent Design promoters in his book "The God Delusion" - a very well written book of 406 pages of science and philosophy and reasoned arguments. He pointed out the flaw in their most fundamental claim that the universe and life are too complex to have occurred naturally and had to have a "maker" or designer. Dawkins pointed out the logical flaw in their argument that causes the argument (or claim) to be self-contradictory. Anyone who knows logic knows that a self-contradictory claim is illogical or FALSE. If the Universe had to have a maker because of its complexity, then the maker of the Universe, who is yet more complex than his creation, has to have a maker. And the maker of the maker has to have a maker. This leads to infinite recursion - a sure sign that the argument is invalid or false.

I am reminded of the Hindu argument that the Earth is supported on the back of a tortoise. When asked "What supports the tortoise?", the reply was "It's tortoises all the way down."

Alister McGrath in "The Dawkins Delusion" tries to claim that you can just stop at the "maker" and claim that the "maker" doesn't need a first cause. He then uses a very sloppy argument that reeks of intellectual dishonesty. The problem is that anyone not educated in physics or cosmology will not be aware that Alister McGrath has just pulled the wool over his or her eyes. This is unacceptable and is reprehensible dishonesty.

His claim is thus: Cosmologists/physicists are working on the Grand Unification Theory, which has also become known as "The Theory of Everything." And when they have it, they will claim that the cause of existence ends there, and therefore it is perfectly legitimate for him to end with the claim that it stops with the "maker." McGrath has just made a false and deceptive argument and he hopes that the reader does not know better.

The Grand Unification Theory is NOT a theory of everything. Nor does it claim to be. The use of "The Theory of Everything" is a tongue-in-cheek name given the GUT long ago. It deals with the "unification of forces" that control all matter and energy in the universe. For instance, at one time, science knew of the following forces: magnetism, electricity, the weak nuclear force, the strong nuclear force, and gravity. These forces control all interaction of matter and energy in the universe.

Maxwell discovered that magnetism and electricity are actually two states of the same force, and that force became "electromagnetism." He combined or "unified" the forces. Since Maxwell's time, scientists have been working to unify electromagnetism with the "weak nuclear force" and physicists have succeeded using atom smashers or "particle colliders." Now we know that there is a "weak nuclear/electromagnetic force." They are now set about proving that the "strong nuclear force" can be unified with the weak nuclear/electromagnetic force. The problem is that each successive unification needs higher and higher thermal levels. At the time of the big bang, the temperature of the universe was almost infinitely higher than anything that exists today. At that temperature - it is believed by physicists - there was only one force the "strong/weak nuclear/electromagnetic/gravity force. All the forces were ONE FORCE. As the universe expanded it rapidly cooled. As it cooled, the forces separated. They can only maintain the unified state at exceedingly high temperatures beyond anything we have now. They yet don't know how they will fit gravity into the picture at the quantum level.

Physicists know well that unifying the forces is NOT the total knowledge of existence. They do not know what happened before the big bang, nor will they ever know. To do that, they would have to go beyond the universe itself, and how do they do that? They can't. They can theorize, but that is all they can do in that respect.

McGrath has tried to deceive the reader into believing that he made a legitimate argument when, in fact, he didn't. Dawkins's argument still stands and will stand, as long logic still exists. Now McGrath could plead ignorance since he is not, after all, a physicist himself, so it was an "honest" mistake on his part. But that won't do! Why not? Because McGrath - time after time - in his personal attack on Richard Dawkins, claimed that Dawkins wandered into fields where he had no expertise and therefore made "sloppy arguments." He claimed that this was an example of intellectual sloth, sloppiness, and dogmatism on the part of Dawkins. He attacked Dawkins personally over and over again relentlessly. And now, McGrath is seriously guilty of the same claim he makes against Dawkins. However, my personal belief from reading this book is that it was no error on McGrath's part but a deliberate attempt at intellectual dishonesty - because he does it not only there, but also throughout his book. Alister McGrath cannot plead ignorance. His deception is intentional.

If you are looking for deceptive arguments just to support your belief, then you might like "The Dawkins Delusion." But you should be aware that if you attempt to use any of Alister McGrath's arguments, you would be cut to pieces by any knowledgeable person with a background in physics and cosmology. He will quickly show McGrath's arguments for the intellectual trash that they truly are.

I would never recommend any book that uses intellectual dishonesty. Books that do that are little more than trash. If you seek knowledge, then seek knowledge, do not seek dishonesty. I expect that kind of behavior from rabid political movements, but definitely not from educated scientists. McGrath has no excuse and he needs to hang his head in shame.

The problems arise immediately, even before opening the book. McGrath is off to a poor start with the title of the book (which betrays his animosity for Dawkins in an otherwise superficially congenial book). He implies that Dawkins (henceforth RD) is delusional about god. A delusion is defined (Amer Heritage Dict) as "A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence". So, then, what belief is the author referring to? There isn't one. It is actually lack of belief. But even if you can be delusional about a lack of belief (e.g. George Bush doesn't exist), it still won't apply. What is the "invalidating evidence" for RD's lack of belief? In other words, to call his lack of belief in god "delusional", very powerful evidence for god's existence must be presented. Otherwise, it's just petty name-calling. Not surprisingly, there is none of that powerful evidence presented. He obsessively refers to "evidence", "scientific rigor", "rationality", and other scientific catch phrases in a pathetic hope that by saying them repeatedly, it will almost appear as if those concepts were actually applied. He knows that his readers (mostly believers) want to consider themselves rational and clear thinkers who rely on evidence (who doesn't?). It's easy for a believer to miss the fact that no evidence for the existence of god is actually presented. But he, as a former scientist and current Oxford theologian, is most likely fully aware of that glaring omission. This makes him disingenuous, at best.

One need not go any further than the subtitle to find yet another foundational flaw of the book: the use of the term "Fundamentalist". It is a term that doesn't apply to a lack of a belief. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in god. So what, then, separates a "fundie" atheist from a regular atheist? They both go as far as you can in their lack of belief (absolutely none). Simply put, there are no "fundamental" beliefs to be a "fundamentalist" about. "Atheism is the absence of belief in gods, nothing more and nothing less, so there is nothing "fundamental" for atheists to "get back to" in order to achieve a more pure or original atheism." (from about.com). This would seem a minor problem if it were confined to the cover of the book. Unfortunately, the baseless theme of "atheist fundamentalism" is one of the underlying theses of the whole book. Yet, I continued on.

The next foundational flaw involves no less than the whole purpose of the book. He states that he doesn't want to refute every point in TGD, just certain points. How convenient and utterly dishonest! He claims that a devastatingly comprehensive point by point refutation is within his capabilities but would be too boring. Also, one would think that, given the brevity of his book, he would use only his most powerful and convincing arguments. Well, if these are his best points, then his ability to completely dismantle RDs book is suspect, to say the least (The debate they had has verified this). But let's take a closer look at a few of the details.

1)"Religion has made a comeback" (p 8): Even if everyone believed in god, it would not make it true.
2) "I was...totally persuaded of the truth...of atheism" (p 9): He repeatedly invokes his supposedly atheist roots as though it gives him more credibility. (It's irrelevant. Should spend the few pages on logic and evidence)
3) He calls RD an "aggressive antireligious propagandist with an apparent disregard for evidence" (p 12): Yet he provides none of this counter-evidence (while at the same time insulting him, as he does throughout the book).

4) Recounts a story in which "a very angry young man" (an atheist whose "faith" was shaken) accosted him after a lecture because AM "had demonstrated , by rigorous use of scientific, historical, and philosophical arguments" that RD's case against god falls apart. Again, just keep *saying* it's evidence-based. Maybe nobody will notice that it's not there. (prove me wrong). Plus, it's irrelevant (and, at least to me, sounds like BS).

5) He willfully misrepresents the Santa Claus analogy (p 20), calling it "flawed" because people never start believing in Santa as adults. Analogies are meant to compare similar aspects of 2 different things that are otherwise dissimilar. The intent is to gain a deeper understanding of the thing that is in question by comparing it to something that is more understood. Examples are the heart as a pump or the eye as a camera. All analogies break down at some level (yes, all). The whole point of the analogy is that neither belief (god or Santa) is based on evidence. That's it.

6) An entire chapter (that's a quarter of the book) is devoted to debunking a claim that RD never made (Ch2, Has science disproved god). RD clearly states that he cannot definitively disprove god (both in his book and in interviews and debates).

7) In Ch 3(Origins of Religion), he attacks the concept of the meme. Again, irrelevant. This is the either/or fallacy. If memes didn't do it, it must have been divine revelation. He once again fails to give any evidence at all for his own position. Thus, Ch 3 is also off the mark.

8) Religion/the bible isn't all bad. It says nice things too. True, but he misses the point (again). The point is (sigh) there's enough bad in it to make it seem unlikely that the bible is the source of our morals. This, incidentally, renders another entire chapter superfluous (Ch 4, Is Religion Evil).

There isn't room enough to catalogue all the basic flaws but I think the ones I have outlined show that the book does not achieve its stated purpose. Bottom line is this: This is a rebuttal book without a rebuttal. It's like non-adhesive tape or a car that won't run. Its fundamental intended purpose is not fulfilled. In other words, it failed. 2 stars (vs 1) because I was impressed that he can write an entire rebuttal essay without addressing any of the key points of the argument in which he intends to rebut. Plus he is a good writer and superficially civil. PS, I welcome comments, especially from those who vote that this review is not helpful.

A Battle of Wits with Everything at Stake

Alister and Joanna McGrath write what is actually the third installment in a trilogy of books responding to Dawkins. Their other two salvos are "Dawkins' God" and "The Twilight of Atheism." These previous works are deeper engagements with Dawkins than is "The Dawkins Delusion?" Readers should thus keep in mind that installment three is geared more as the "user-friendly" lay-level book. This doesn't make it less valuable, simply less intellectually engaging of the finer points of Dawkins.

The McGraths' point is basic. "Let's fight fair if we must fight." They play out this point in their kindler, gentler approach to Dawkins than he ever plays out in his harsh, bullying, demeaning, condescending approach to Christians (and to God--though God is well able to handle Himself).

They also highlight their basic point by pointing out, as another reviewer artfully states, that "if a sophisticated thinker like Dawkins engages in a battle of wits with blue collar workers then he's going to win even if he's wrong." The McGraths come along side the blue collar workers, respecting their ability to engage truth and debate falsehood.

Their work, especially the combined three-volume series, is a persuasive retort to Dawkins' bullying tactics. They display grace in the face of graceless attacks and they present a reasoned case for the reasonableness of the Christian faith.

Will their work convince anyone whose mindset is, "I'll be damned if I'll become a Christian!" Unlikely. Will their work bring confidence to anyone whose mindset is, "I am a believer and want to understand the reasons for my faith system." Certainly. The more important target audience is the honest seeker--the unbeliever who is unafraid of candid discussion about God. Unfortunately, this tribe seem ever shrinking as people stake their claim and fight for their cause when everything is at stake.

Reviewer: Bob Kellemen, Ph.D, is the author of Soul Physicians, Spiritual Friends, and Beyond the Suffering: Embracing the Legacy of African American Soul Care and Spiritual Direction .

I have no expertise but great interest in this debate and I found this book very disappointing. It is an entirely negative rebuttal. Its hundred pages provide little counterargument. It does not deserve publication as a book, perhaps as a book review in much briefer form. McGrath's approach is based on dismissive personal attack which does little for me but raise questions about the integrity of his own position. This is a surprisingly unimpressive effort for a Professor of theology at Oxford. I was expecting him to deal with the issues rather than try to belittle their proponent.

Dawkins book is an admittedly polemical work - as such it is not required to refer comprehensively to research but to put across an argument to the public in a coherent and reasonable manner. McGrath complains that Dawkins ignores latest literature but this is a petty, academic position. If Dawkins wishes to quote Shakespeare then in a popularizing work this is quite legitimate provided the reference reasonably develops a point.

McGrath accuses Dawkins of ignoring evidence in his 400 pages, but this is a charge that is much more applicable to McGrath. He tries to skewer Dawkins with his own argument by painting him as a fanatic, the equal and opposite of, say, the Taliban, implying that atheists such as he have to face up to their own irrationalities of faith. But this criticism is silly because atheistic ideas are obviously grounded in science, not faith - that is their whole point - despite McGrath's dismissal of Dawkin's science. Furthermore atheism does not exercise control of the minds of billions of people in the present era. The fate of the World is to a large extent in the hands of religious zealots. Atheism does not currently have a significant case to answer.

McGrath starts to approach the issues, citing Medawar, on page 39, but never follows up despite their absolute centrality to the whole argument. In the last chapter he seems to address the issue of the historic violence done in the name of religion by distinguishing religious affiliation from ultimate religious faith. Without religious affiliation, he seems to say, partisanship and destructive misbehavior would continue under another name (transcendentalizing earthly concerns) - because that is human nature. But it seems absurd to defend the violence that occurs in the name of religion, whether Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Hindu or other, by saying that it is natural and would happen anyway. Surely religious affiliation is supposed to enhance human behavior and provide a framework in which destructiveness is less likely.

A central point of Dawkins seems to be that for thousands of years the religions of the world have developed complex, often mutually exclusive, myths, legends and rituals, invested huge resources, developed extensive institutional structures, and assumed control of the minds of billions of people, all in the cause of asserting solutions to mysteries that cannot be solved! At the same time religion has excoriated science for not solving those same mysteries. But it is religion, not science that is accountable for this colossal investment of human energy. If the avowed mystery of existence was left to be addressed simply, perhaps through personal reflection and prayer, rather than through the unproven, competing assertions and elaborate claims of vast religious establishments then perhaps Dawkins and Co would not object. Meanwhile, McGrath's book sheds no light.

Perhaps the most persuasive fact in The Dawkins Delusion - Alister and Joanna McGrath's devastating critique of Richard Dawkins - is that Dawkins's most vociferous critics in the scientific community are actually atheists who disapprove of his dogma. Dawkins comes across as a rather petty man with an "if-you-are-not-with-me-then-you-are-against-me" mentality (sort of like George Bush). Like members of the Religious Right, Dawkins has elected himself speaker for the entire scientific community. The only problem is that nobody else in the scientific community supports that. For instance, Michael Ruse is an atheist philosopher - a proponent of Darwinism and an enemy of Fundamentalism. When Ruse dared to criticize Dawkins's belief in the necessity of total war between religion and science, Dawkins labeled him an "appeaser" and publicly disavowed him. Other, equally rational atheists all share the same view.

Therein lies the heart of the matter - Dawkins is hoisted by his own petard. McGrath effectively shows that Dawkins's reasoning is irrational and fallacious. Dawkins is so obsessed with the "truthiness" of atheism, that he doesn't let little things like facts get in the way. Here are some things to consider:

* Richard Dawkins asserts that science has disproved faith. If that were true, all scientists would be atheists. IN REALITY, about 40% of scientists believe in God, 45% do not, and the rest are undecided. The late, great Stephen Jay Gould (evolutionary biologist and Dawkins's intellectual superior) famously stated that Darwinism is fully compatible with both atheism and religious beliefs.
* When Dawkins is confronted with facts that simply don't fit his worldview, he denies that they exist. Dawkins once condemned Faith as "blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence." Dawkins must then condemn himself as well. When confronted with Gould's quote, Dawkins can only say that he didn't mean it. It works the other way too: Dawkins needs to believe that all religion is against science, so when the Pope endorsed evolution, Dawkins said (you guessed it!) that he didn't mean it.
* Dawkins entire "scientific" attack on religion is based on "the God of the gaps" theory. This theory states that the reason people believe in God is to explain the gaps in our scientific knowledge. By that reasoning, religious people don't want science to progress because it would eliminate the idea of God. This is just plain wrong. Very few people have taken "the God of the gaps" theory seriously for the past hundred-and-fifty years. If that were so, why do religious scientists constantly try to fill in those gaps?

And that is just the tip of the iceberg...

McGrath clearly shows that the type of Atheism that Dawkins (and his defenders) advocate is simply another brand of fundamentalism - it refuses to allow its ideas to be examined or challenged. Like any sort of fundamentalism, it can lead to violence: Dawkins's belief in the necessity of a war-to-the-death between science and religion is the mirror image of American Fundamentalism. It is interesting to note that this insistence of his on an "either...or" fallacy has actually made him a hero of the Intelligent Design movement, because he drives people them.

In his book, Dawkins writes that he is trying to persuade all religious people to become atheists, but McGrath effectively shows this to be a lie. The correct way to persuade people is by appealing to a common ground - not by attacking them with cheap shots and petty name-calling. No, Dawkins writes to reassure the fundamentalist atheist community whose faith is faltering. McGrath writes: "Fundamentalism arises when a worldview feels it is in danger, lashing out at its enemies when it fears its own future threatened."

At the beginning I felt this book had promise. It was nice to know that the author of the book had previously been an atheist, so I felt that he could at least bring some understanding to the table. I was also heartened by his generally positive treatment of Dawkins, especially in speaking of his previous book. For these reasons, I became interested immediately in the rebuttal McGrath would bring to the table. I was sorely disappointed.

As an over-arching theme of the entire book, McGrath claims that Dawkins fails to bring any sort of scientific rigor to the table. There is some (emphasis some) truth to that statement. But, as is generally the case with criticism, McGrath finds himself guilty of the same sin throughout. If the writing style of Dawkins is so polemic then it would be wise to take the high road and avoid it, rather than hiking up the pant legs and hopping right down into the muck.

The most frustrating thing about this book was how consistently McGrath claimed Dawkins holds certain views, then proves those views false. Unfortunately, a quick glance at the actual text shows over and again that Dawkins never claimed those arguments in the first place.

The place where this is most prevalent is in the middle 20 pages where McGrath attacks Dawkins views on where a belief in God came from. He says that Dawkins falls back on all sorts of arguments such as memes that are completely insubstantial. The funny thing is that if you read Dawkins's book, you see that he makes no claim to the authenticity of the ideas. In fact, he is quite careful to couch all of the claims as hypothesis, nothing more. Whereas McGrath claims that Dawkins is saying that these are true. It's even odd that so much space of this 100 page book was spent discussing this issue as it is completely ancillary to Dawkins's argument in the first place.

Next, McGrath seems to imply that Dawkins hates all religious people. He does not. In fact, he talks many times about how much he likes these people. It's not the people he hates, it's the belief systems. I felt that this was very clear throughout. I will admit that his tone can be quite sarcastic and condescending at times. He does not take that to the next level of hate, which is what McGrath seems to imply.

McGrath continually amazed me at the odd selection of talking points. He seemed to just be frustrated and not know where to go so he just went wherever the wind would take him. This is most evident in his refutation of Dawkins's discussion of infinite regress. He actually claims that scientists searching for the grand unification theory debunks the infinite regress argument. How ridiculous of an argument is that? I just couldn't believe that such an idea could possibly strike someone as even remotely cogent.

Another of his tactics is to counter claims made by Dawkins by saying, "I don't believe that." That's wonderful that he is a progressive person with regards to religion, but such is generally not the case. Dawkins never claims that beliefs he's countering are held by everyone. Just because some Christians realize the Earth is older than 6,000 years doesn't mean that it's not an important talking point, because the fact remains that many people do believe it.

And I have one more thing while I'm bashing the book. Why was he only able to come up with 96 large print pages against Dawkins's 400 page behemoth? I left the book feeling that McGrath hadn't really tried to respond to Dawkins. He feels like he just gave up half way through. The majority of "The God Delusion" remains completely unmentioned, unrefuted.

But now for the reason I gave the book two stars instead of just one. His last chapter made me think. Dawkins blames much of the world's problems on religion, especially violence. McGrath makes a good argument that it is really dogmaticism, not religion (though he stops short of saying it thusly). There have been dogmatic atheists that have caused untold horror just as there are dogmatic theists that have also caused untold horror. This last chapter really made me have to think a bit about where the problem of violence stems. If the book had simply been this chapter rather than the previous nonsense, I probably would have rated it four stars.

Ultimately, McGrath explains very well his purpose in writing this book. His purpose is not scholarly, his purpose is to supply people answers for when their friends come around. I think that's a shame. Is that what our public dialogue is? Are we simply looking for pre-written answers to throw at those with whom we disagree? Or are we honestly seeking for truth and answers?

Alister McGrath does a great job analyzing and demolishing Dawkins in this book.

McGrath is no extremist. He is fair and willing to admit when Dawkins has a good point.

To be fair, it's not hard to demolish The Dawkins Delusion. Dawkins is an excellent writer, and is great with words. His books on evolutionary biology are said to be excellently written. However, when talking about theology, he is out of his league. Fellow atheist Michael Ruse said that Dawkins should at least try to learn something about Christianity before he criticizes it. When Dawkins writes about religion one wonders if he has ever actually read the bible or studied anything at all about Christianity or Christian history or psychology or philosophy - yet he writes as if he were an expert on all of them.

Dr McGrath systematically and fairly addresses all of Dawkins' objections.
It's not a difficult read, it's well researched, and fairly presented. Tons of footnotes and references.

Great book. I highly recommend it.

McGrath is unable or unwilling to see the difference between an atheist and an anti-religion fanatic. An atheist is simply one who does not believe in God. Atheism is a form of skepticism, like not believing in the Loch Ness monster, ghosts, UFOs, etc. Many atheists in modern liberal democracies are critical of religion but will not do violence against religionists because of our modern civilized values, in particular, freedom of expression and religious tolerance. Atheists in countries like the Soviet Union, China and North Korea, etc have different values and behaviour because of the societies in which they live - communist, totalitarian, ideological, etc. They are anti-religion fanatics. They are to be condemned, not for their atheism but for their violence and suppression of freedom.

McGrath needs to stop using the word 'atheism' to describe these totalitarian countries; instead, he can call them 'anti-religious' or 'intolerant of religion'. Don't use the word 'secular' as well. Secular means no religion in the public sphere aka separation of religion and state, ie, no religion in government, politics, education, workplace, social organizations, etc.